Think about the issues that are important to you and give an honest examination of whether those issues have been met over the last 4 years. There are a number of different websites out there where you can answer a questionnaire about issues and then it will tell you which candidate your answers more closely match up to.

I only ask that people just don't get their political opinions based upon your friends, from this message board, from Letterman and Leno. Vote your conscience and you cannot go wrong. That's the best thing about being a democracy.

Interesting read indeed. Some of which the author himself states is disputed. Like the saudi trips after 9/11 when everyone else was grounded. which many say didn't happen, which soesn't explain this http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/...ies_flig.shtml
(this did not appear in f9/11 but afterward.)

A lot of stuff he says that he has no dispute with what Moore showed, just that there are a lot of democrats, or George Soros, or whomever, which is hardly the point.
anyone that doubts the bush family relationship to the bin ladins should see this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/pr...t/attack22.ram

The point is: there are many sides to a story. Unfortunately, thanks to the media, there is only one portrayed. When Palast Gave the voter story to the media, the media went to their fact checkers....

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=33&row=2
Take this story of the list of Florida's faux felons that cost Al Gore the election. Shortly after the UK and Salon stories hit the worldwide web, I was contacted by a CBS network news producer ready to run their own version of the story. The CBS hotshot was happy to pump me for information: names, phone numbers, all the items one needs for a quickie TV story.

I also freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, brother of the Republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls -- real felons, but with the right to vote under Florida law. As a result, thousands of these legal voters, almost all Democrats, would not be allowed to vote.

One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing documents and law, and obtaining statements. The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." Well, how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network determine this? Why, "we called Jeb Bush's office." Oh. And that was it.

so, calling the accused party to see if a story is true counts as 'fact checking'? thats like asking the mafia if they do anything illegal.

Christopher Hitchens really did not like the movie at all, and he's been the only writer ever brave enough to criticize Mother Theresa.

I hear ya. I almost choked on my dinner the night I watched Hitchens criticize (too be polite) Mother Theresa. I swear you could hear a pin drop in that audience.

Originally Posted by senrik

The point is: there are many sides to a story. Unfortunately, thanks to the media, there is only one portrayed.

Which is exactly why I posted that link.

Originally Posted by senrik

Actually, he did a book on Clinton.... it was called 'stupid white men'

Actually, he was a feature in the book, it was not about him. Blew the dust off my trusty copy of Stupid White Men. Moore targets Bush, Cheney and the corporate elite. Clinton is a side note in the scheme of the book.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources

Michael Moore has set up a "war room" that includes his fact sheet, sources archive, and his rebuttal against media trying to discredit his film. In this month's TIME, regarding his film, he claims to have no factual errors and is thinking of offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who finds one. Maybe it's just a great marketing strategy or something to reflect upon.